Powerful Reasons Why Scholars Know that Jesus Existed.

What follows is a list that I have compiled of the evidence for the historical Jesus.

1. Nothing to the Contrary.

If Jesus really were a non-existent figure of history it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would have made this known at some point. In fact the most hostile group towards Jesus and early Christianity were the Jews, yet they affirmed Jesus’ existence by trying to accuse the disciples of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb (Matthew 28:13, Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian’s On Spectacles, 30)). We also find anti-Jesus material in the much later Jewish Talmud accusing him of treachery and leading Israel astray. Those that hated Christianity the most just had to discover that Jesus was a figment of the early Christians imagination and expose it, and that would be the end of Christianity, however, not once does this ever happen.

Take, for example, the polemic against the empty tomb. Paul Maier in his work ‘In the Fullness of Time’ tells us that: “Jewish polemic shared with Christians the conviction that the sepulcher was empty, but gave natural explanations for it. And such positive evidence within a hostile source is the strongest kind off evidence.”

We should ask ourselves, why did the Jews try to explain away Jesus’ tomb if there was no Jesus in the first place? It’s almost certainly because Jesus existed. To continue with Paul Maier: “Now you can argue about whether he was the Son of God or not, you can argue about the supernatural aspects of his life, but in terms of the historical character there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary and all the evidence is in the favor.”

2. Scholars Think the Evidence is Persuasive.

The most credible New Testament, Biblical, historical, and early Christianity scholars today, from all backgrounds of belief, agree wholeheartedly that Jesus once existed. Of course the debate arises in what we can know about Jesus but that is beyond our purposes here. As Professor Bultmann, Professor of New Testament studies, once remarked:

“Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

Paul Maier, former Professor of Ancient History, pens that: “The total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

Also, Craig Evans who is widely known for his writings on the subject of the historical Jesus says that: “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

Skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman (who is certainly no friend of Christianity) states that: “These views are so extreme (that Jesus did not exist) and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”

Scholar Michael Grant says: “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”

In truth, the claim that Jesus never existed as a historical person is not on the table of historical scholarship, in the words of Richard Burridge: “I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that (that Jesus did not exist) anymore.”

3. Jesus Crucifixion is Historically Certain.

There are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion. So many in fact that it is beyond doubt that Jesus really died on a cross. We find that all four canonical gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) attesting to this fact.

We also find Serapion, in his letter, refers to the crucifixion of the “wise king”. Josephus Flavius, writing within the 1st century, refers to Jesus’ crucifixion very vividly, “And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.” Cornelius Tacitus, writing in the early 2nd century, in his work Annals also refers to Jesus’ crucifixion. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now “firmly established” that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. The much later Jewish Talmud states that “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged.” The early Church fathers unanimously believed that Jesus was crucified on a cross, for instance Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp.

No credible historian rejects that Jesus was crucified. Scholar John Crossan, of the radical Jesus Seminar, writes: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

According to atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann: “Jesus’ death as a result of crucifixion is indisputable.”

4. The Gospels Sources.

This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each gospel houses, to a greater or lesser degree, independent traditions from Jesus’ life. There is some consultation of sources between the gospels.

The gospels are our most reliable historical information on Jesus’ three year ministry. They are generally classified as Greco-Roman biography, as Graham Stanton of Cambridge University has noted: “I do not think it is now possible to deny that the Gospels are a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of ‘lives,’ that is, biographies.”

The gospels are undeniably based on a historical figure, and that would, obviously, be Jesus. There are likewise (as I will mention more about below) sources behind the gospels. For instance, Mark is the earliest source, and Luke and Matthew come after Mark. Luke and Matthew do use Mark as a source material for much of their content, yet at the same time seem to also consult another unknown lost source – which is called hypothetical Q (thought to contain sayings of Jesus), there is also another special material that scholars suggest that Matthew’s author consulted called M. The same applies to Luke’s gospel, as it is believed that he also had access to special material called L. Lastly, John comes in at the latest (around 90 – 95 AD), and is entirely unique in its recordings of sayings/events etc. of Jesus. This leads Bart Ehrman to claim that:

“With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life… Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.”

5. The Willingness to Suffer & Die for Jesus.

Jim Wallace, a homicide detective, analyses these very aspects of the disciples lives, thus explaining that: “My case work as a homicide detective taught me something important: there are only three motives behind any murder (or any crime, or sin, for that matter). All crimes are motivated by financial greed, sexual lust (relational desire) or the pursuit of power.” So, if this is correct then we should apply it as a criterion to the disciples.

We can immediately disqualify the motivation from sexual lust (if anything Jesus is alleged to have taught strongly against lust, Matthew 5:28), and we can immediately disqualify financial greed as the disciples traveled poverty stricken with Jesus both before and after he died, and happily did so until their deaths. Jesus is also alleged to have taught that finances, if misused and worshiped, would end up getting someone rejected from inheriting eternal life in Heaven if not avoided (Matthew 19:24). Having negated that, then what about power? Were the disciples after that?

Almost certainly not. Firstly, the apostles were heavily despised by their Jewish culture as a consequence of their leadership within the early Christian community. If they were lying about their testimony to gain the respect and admiration of the culture they were trying to convert, they were taking the wrong approach. Secondly, many of the disciples (Paul included), and early Christians, only succeeded in gaining the infamy that constantly put them at risk, and eventually, for some of them that we can tell, eventually cost them their lives. This was obvious to them from the beginning; they knew their testimony would leave them powerless to stop their own brutal martyrdom.

Lastly, the Apostles were clearly pursued and mistreated, and the New Testament narratives and letters describe their efforts to avoid capture. The Apostles continually evaded capture in an effort to continue their personal ministries as eyewitnesses. The New Testament accounts describe men who were bold enough to maintain their ministry, but clever enough to avoid apprehension for as long as possible

In concluding this question, certainly not. The disciples had nothing to gain power wise from their efforts. So in essence, they went to their deaths believing their message, and this message they received from a resurrected Jesus. This would hardly be the case if Jesus never existed. Jim Wallace concludes: “As I examine the motives and consequences related to the testimony of the Apostles, I still find their martyrdom to be one of the most powerful evidences related to the veracity of their testimony.”

6. The Minimal Facts Approach.

New Testament scholar Gary Habermas is chiefly responsible for this effort having, from the mid-20th century up until today, sifted through some 3400 articles written by scholars in the fields of New Testament studies and history, he writes: “My bibliography is presently at about 3400 sources and counting, published originally in French, German, or English. Initially I read and catalogued the majority of these publications, charting the representative authors, positions, topics, and so on, concentrating on both well-known and obscure writers alike, across the entire skeptical to liberal to conservative spectrum.”

What is so remarkable about this effort is that he can present four basic facts about Jesus that all (by all that would be 99.9%) of the scholars in these relevant fields agree upon, they are namely:

That Jesus was crucified.

That he was buried in a tomb.

That three days later the tomb was found empty.

That the disciples, skeptics Paul and James had encountered the risen Jesus.

All four of these facts are accepted by the majority of historians in the field; the only exception is that point 3, the empty tomb, is accepted by roughly 75% (or two-thirds) of scholars in the field, which is still the vast majority. This would suggest the historical evidence for Jesus is quite compelling.

7. Creeds.

Creeds are important for historians as they usually date much earlier than the actual texts from which we learn about them, and, with this in mind, we find out that the New Testament has its fair share of them.

Within the New Testament there are creeds, hymns, and formulations that date to the earliest church (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Philippians 2:5-11, Romans 10:9, etc.). But the most important one that is discussed is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

In it Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Corinthians 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends based on a non-existent character of history.

But what is so important about this creed is that Paul in I Corinthians 15:3-5 is quoting an ancient Christian tradition which he himself received and which goes back to within five years after the crucifixion. In fact, the prominent New Testament scholar James Dunn dates it back to within 18 months of Jesus’ death.

So, in essence, creeds provide a strong basis for Jesus’ historicity as they are early sources that predating the gospels as well as any of the Pauline and other New Testament literature. Some, in the case of 1 Corinthians 15, even date to from within five years of Jesus’ life.

8. The Negligible Time Gap.

The four gospels, in hindsight of contemporary consensus, were written between 35 (Mark) and 60 (John) years after Jesus’ life. This by historical standards is early, as prominent New Testament scholar Mike Licona writes: “…a gap of sixty to seventy years between the writing and the events they purport to describe is quite early compared to what historians work with when it comes to other ancient biographies.”

Interestingly enough, the bulk of our information on Alexander the Great comes from the prominent ancient historian Plutarch. Thus, the earliest source for Alexander used by modern historians is more than 260 years after his death and the most reliable source is more than 370 years removed. When we compare our earliest gospel (Mark) to such a time-scale, it is highly appreciated by historians.

Furthermore, this short time period would allow for the impact events of Jesus ministry (miracles, exorcisms, prophecies, death, resurrection etc.) to be fresh in the minds of the eyewitnesses the gospel authors consulted. For many today the 9/11 bombings is a tragic event. It is likewise an impact event, and as a result we will likely be able to recall certain details (did it happen at night or day? Was it a rainy day or a sunny day? Did the rubble and smoke from the buildings cause X or Y to happen? What were some reactions of onlookers near to the event like? etc.). It is likely that we are able to remember these details and the same would apply to the disciples as they knew of the extraordinary things Jesus said and did, and hence they would be able to remember important details because they saw it first hand.

9. The Rise of Early Christianity.

If Jesus did not exist then we wouldn’t have Christianity in the first place. In fact, one may argue that if Jesus did not rise from the grave the disciples and Paul & James would not have led changed lives (from their preceding Jewish norms), had a willingness to suffer, or end up martyred (in the case of a few of them) for their faith in Jesus. If Jesus did not exist, or even appear to Paul, we would not have his conversion despite him having persecuted the early Church. The gospels tell us that Jesus’ family thought he was mad (Mark 3:21), and that not even his brothers believed in him (John 7:5). However, when Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his brother James, James then ends up leading the Church and is killed for this (Antiquities 20 v. 9). Could a non-existent Jesus account for such a radical transformation for all of these men?

Furthermore, it is because Jesus appeared to the 500 others, as Paul mentioned (1 Corinthians 15), that the Church rapidly grew, and that he gospel so quickly spread. According to a leading New Testament scholar N.T. Wright: “That is why, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”

10. The Apostle Paul’s Epistles.

We know of several documents that Paul wrote himself, some of which predate the gospels by 20 or so years (that’s if we agree the earliest Gospel, Mark, was authored at 70 AD the latest). Paul places Jesus in a historical context, for example in 1 Corinthians 15:4 we read about Jesus “that he was buried and was raised”. Paul is placing Jesus in a tomb (buried), and that later the tomb was empty (as corroborated by the gospels). Jesus’ existence, crucifixion and resurrection is affirmed throughout all Paul’s genuine, undisputed epistles.

11. Paul Met Jesus’ Brother James, and Jesus’ Disciple Peter.

Paul writes: “After three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:18-20)

Paul states that he met Jesus’ brother James, as well as Jesus’ disciple Peter. Paul doesn’t tell us much of what they spoke about, but as sure as anything they relayed the events of Jesus’ ministry and supernatural appearances to them after his crucifixion. If anyone were to know of Jesus’ existence it would be Peter and James, the very closest people to him. Evidently none of them left their meeting doubting Jesus’ Earthly existence.

12. Paul was Familiar with Jesus’ Sayings.

On three occasions in Paul’s letters he shows that he is familiar with the sayings of Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:10; 9:14; 11:1, 2, 20-25). Paul also indicates that he knew that the historical Jesus was meek and gentle (2 Corinthians 10:1) and that either he came from a poor family or lived a poor life, or both (2 Corinthians 8:9). As Australian New Testament scholar Paul Barnett states: “There can be no doubt that, both before he was a disciple but also afterwards, Paul knew a lot about the historical Jesus.”

Again, this lends credence to the proposition that Jesus existed, at least according Paul. If Jesus never existed then one would need to explain how Paul knew these (and some 27 facts) traditions about Jesus’ life. Further, one would need to argue that Paul was duped into believing that all this originated from a historical person, Jesus.

13. Paul Knew of the Tradition of Jesus.

In 1 Corinthians 11:24, Paul writes on Jesus, “when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Here Paul is obviously aware of the Jesus tradition recorded in our gospels (Mark 14:22; Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19).

After all, tradition doesn’t just pop into existence but is based on historical truth. That historical truth is that Jesus really said and did what Paul had said he did – this tradition is also attested in the gospel accounts which only further confirms their historical value and veracity.

14. Luke Mentioning Other Accounts.

When Luke began to write his gospel account he reported that others had previously compiled accounts of the things Jesus had done. Luke was writing to a man named Theophilus, someone he was trying to impress as seen in the Greek vernacular he was writing to him in (Luke 1). Clearly Luke is trying to impress this man. Thus, if that is true the Luke almost certainly wouldn’t make his core reason for writing based on a fictional and imaginary character of history. Such an act would surely have been be uncovered and Luke would be shamed & discredited as a source of information.

Secondly, it is also unlikely that Luke would lie about other people having written on Jesus, though what happened to these other writings we do not know. This man named Theophilus would have possibly had access to these other accounts that were being written on Jesus, or he would likely know of others that had written these accounts. Either way it stretches credulity to argue that Luke was lying. It’s been argued that Luke may have referred to other accounts such as hypothetical Q, which could have been multiple oral/written sources, however this remains conjecture.

15. Historical ripple.

With a figure like Jesus allegedly performing such miracles, and leaving a name for himself, we would expect the historical record to leave something for us. According to Jim Wallace, we find this in the:

Infancy Gospels – The Gospels leave out much of Jesus’ life as a young boy with the exception of when he was learning in a temple at age 12 (Luke 2:41-52). The Gospels only pick up at the beginning of his ministry at age 30. In other words, the Gospels are silent regarding his life from 12 to 30, and this is often referred to as Jesus’ lost years. As a result of this we find forgeries trying to add events to Jesus’ lost years, such forgeries that appear in the historical record much after the traditional Gospels would include the ‘Infancy Gospel of James’ and the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’.

Jewish Gospels – There were many groups of Jewish converts in early Christianity who retained their strong Jewish identity. As a result, these groups typically upheld and maintained the Mosaic Law, and their gospels reflected this. The “Gospel of the Ebionites”, the “Gospel of the Hebrews” and the “Gospel of the Nazoreans” are the three texts representing this group. None of these texts have survived, but we do see references to them in letters written by Early Church Fathers who were critical of their theology and their representation of the life of Jesus.

Sayings Gospels – Such an example would include the non-canonical ‘Gospel of Thomas’, which is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus.

Passion Gospels – We find some ancient writings that are specifically focused on the trial, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The “Gospel of Bartholomew” is one such example.

Gnostic writings – These Gospels often appear early in history because these groups were already in existence and well developed even before Jesus was born. As a result, many Gnostic groups simply co-opted the narrative of Jesus for their own purposes. Many of these Gnostic documents portray Jesus in a series of dialogues, providing hidden knowledge intended for those few believers who were part of the sect.

16. Josephus Refers to Jesus, Twice.

The great 1st century Jewish historian and ancient writer Josephus Flavius affirms that James, the brother of Jesus, was martyred. In his work Antiquities 20 v.9 (95 AD) Josephus writes:

“…and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”.

Now, before we look at the next reference (which is argued to be less trustworthy) we ought to note that this reference is, according to the world’s leading Jospehus scholar, Loius Feldman “almost universally acknowledged”, and thus beyond dispute. Here we have a legitimate reference to the historical Jesus and his brother.

The other reference we find in the Testimonium Flavium mentions Jesus in a way that a Jew like Josephus, who was particularly unsympathetic towards Jesus or Christianity, would not have mentioned him. This, correctly, has lead scholars to question its authenticity, and thus scholars have concluded that it is a Christian interpolation. However, scholars unanimously agree that Josephus did mention Jesus in the original before altered copy. Alice Whealey, in her work Josephus on Jesus, believes that the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.

We can know with certainty that Josephus mentioned the historical Jesus twice just merely 60 years after he lived. This is good historical evidence from an independent source written by a credible 1st century historian.

17. Cornelius Tacitus Refers to Jesus.

Tacitus, alongside Josephus and arguably Suetonius, is a very significant Roman historian of whom scholars have learnt much from, and we find out that he mentions Jesus in his writing. Tacitus refers to Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Jesus’ execution and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written 116 AD). Tacitus, in Annals writes: “… called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin …”

Though there has been debate of why Tacitus refers to Jesus as “Christus,” consensus holds that this is a legitimate reference. Along with Josephus, Tacitus goes on to write about Pilate (the prefect that judged Jesus). However, what is important is that Jesus is mentioned by a hostile, independent source within 85 years of his existence. This now makes two authoritative ancient historians who mention Jesus.

18. Suetonius Mentions Jesus.

Suetonius, a third historian, references Jesus, and early Christians in his work “Lives of the Twelve Caesars” (121 AD). In his work, Suetonius writes: “He expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.”

Louis H. Feldman in his work the Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans states that most scholars assume that in the reference Jesus is meant and that the disturbances mentioned were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome. Robert Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament studies, states that there is “near-unanimous” agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus refers to Christ (Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. pp 31-32).

There is debate as to whether Suetonius provides independent attestation to Jesus or is merely relaying tradition that he inherited. Either way, it shows that no-one of ancient history doubted that Jesus existed.

19. Jesus is Mentioned by Serapion & Pliny:

Serapion was a stoic philosopher from the Roman province of Syria, and in a letter he authored he refers to Jesus. The letter is dated between 73 and 200 AD. According to Van Voorst most scholars date the letter shortly after 73 AD, though others propose a later date. Nevertheless, the letter was authored to Serapion’s son, and reads as follows:

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the “new law” he laid down.”

Van Voorst sees little doubt that the reference to the execution of the “king of the Jews” is about the death of Jesus. Bruce Chilton, scholar of early Christianity and Judaism states that Bar-Serapion reference to the “king of Jews” may be related to the inscription on the cross of Jesus’ crucifixion, as recorded in the Gospel of Mark (15:26). Also, Serapion mentions the “new law” of which might refer to Jesus’ resurrection after his crucifixion, whether Serapion believed in Jesus or not is irrelevant.

Further, Pliny was a Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (which is modern Turkey), and he wrote a letter (Epistulae X.96) to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for advice on dealing with Christians. Pliny writes:

“They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”

The genuineness of the passage is accepted; Van Voorst notes that the “style matches that of the other letters” in the same book, and the letters “were known already by the time of Tertullian (196-212 AD).” More importantly, is the testimony by Pliny that Christians died for their faith. This was extremely unlikely to have happened if Jesus had not existed, and these Christians were in a position to know this basic fact.

Again, neither Pliny or Serapion doubted that a historical Jesus existed. In fact, they assumed it was the case. The more we consider this as historical evidence, the more Jesus’ non-existence appears to be a modern-day conspiracy.

20. Clement of Rome Writes on Jesus Existence.

Clement was martyred in 98 AD for his belief in Jesus and his willingness to spread his belief to as many as possible. This makes Clement an early source, and he confirms the ministry of the disciples and some of the basic aspects of early Christianity, he writes:

“The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and being fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God will full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.” (Corinthians 42)

Clement affirms Jesus’ existence rather clearly. What makes Clement even more significant is that Tertullian and Jerome record that Clement was personally ordained by Peter. He was thus a disciple of Peter. Now, Peter was a disciple of Jesus meaning that Clement had access to reliable testimony.

Subsequently, Clement of Rome were martyred for his belief in a risen Jesus. It would stretch credulity to believe that he would do so for an imaginary character.

21. Ignatius of Antioch Writes on Jesus Existence.

Ignatius was a Bishop of Antioch reported to have been appointed to his position by Peter of whom he was a disciple. He is also believed to be a disciple of Paul and John, and was later arrested by the Romans and executed around 100 AD. Ignatius, like Clement of Rome, writes extensively on the historical Jesus in Trallians, Smyrneans 1, and Magnesians xi.

What is also significant is that Theodoret states that Ignatius was personally appointed to the Antioch by Peter (like Clement, this implies a personal relationship with an original Disciple, making 1st hand testimony available to him). We are also aware that John Chrysostom emphasizes the honor bestowed upon Ignatius as he personally received his dedication from the Apostles. Even though his testimony would ultimately lead to his death, Ignatius was adamant about the things he witnessed. He reinforces early Christian beliefs in the letters he wrote while in prison. Ignatius refused to recant his faith in the face of death. Hardly something someone would do for an imaginary character of history.

22. Hypothetical Q.

General consensus is that the gospels consulted other hypothetical non-existent (or no longer existing) sources. For example, Matthew and Luke both consult the Gospel of Mark, but via textual criticism we can see that Matthew and Luke also consulted another source alongside Mark, but of which does not exist anymore. This is what is known as hypothetical Q. It is believed to have consisted of sayings found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Q gets us closer to the initial events of Jesus’ life, and scholars even date this earlier than the Gospel of Mark. Some scholars seem to date the document in the 40’s whilst others date it in the 50’s, yet still others argue that it could be dated within the 30’s based off the Q containing six wisdom speeches. Luke (whom we believe consulted Q) writes that “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us.” (Luke 1:1–4) It is possible that Q source was one of these documents.

23. Luke’s Unique Material, L.

Scholars suggest that the author of the Gospel of Luke seemed to have consulted another additional source: L, generally known as Luke’s unique material. The reason for this is that a lot of stories are found only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels – for example, the stories of the prodigal son, and the good Samaritan are only found in Luke. It is also thought that the L source may have included oral traditions and/or written documents on Jesus. L is therefore material neither found in Mark or Q, both of which Luke used.

24. Matthew’s Unique Material, M.

Just it is the case with Luke, it is held that the author Matthew also consulted additional material known as M. The data that Matthew consults in M is neither found in Q or Mark, and although some are critical of this source, most scholars hold to it. Also like L, M is also thought to contain oral traditions, or written documents about Jesus, or a combination of oral and written traditions.

25. Pre-Markan Passion.

This is a tradition that our earliest gospel, Mark, had used in order to compose his story of the Passion Narrative. This source is widely accepted by scholars today, but what seems to be in dispute is exactly what its contents said. As the exegete and philosopher William Lane Craig articulates in an interview:

“Most scholars today agree with this (that Mark had a source he used). Any reconstruction of this source is controversial, and not widely accepted. That is to say, did verse 5 of chapter 15 belong to the pre-Markan passion source? Did verses 8 to 9 of chapter 14 belong to the passion source?”

So, although the contents of the pre-Markan passion source may be debated, the actual existence of this source is readily accepted. As Craig goes on to say, “That Mark was using and relied upon a pre-Markan passion story is one that is widely accepted by most scholars today, and because it goes back so early it is probably based upon eyewitness testimony.”

26. The Pre-John Source.

John, as mentioned earlier, is undoubtedly independent of all our three synoptic gospels in the the author’s description of events, Jesus’ words and so forth. It is also held that John also used additional sources in composing his account, as Bart Ehrman explains: “But scholars have long suspected that John had at his disposal an earlier written account of Jesus’ miracles (the so-called Signs Source), at least two accounts of Jesus’s long speeches (the Discourse Sources), and possibly another passion source as well.”

Post navigation

As Craig goes on to say, “That Mark was using and relied upon a pre-Markan passion story is one that is widely accepted by most scholars today, and because it goes back so early it is probably based upon eyewitness testimony.”

That scholars in the field accept that this pre-Markan passion material was used by the Gospel author of Mark, and that it may even, as Craig notes, be based on “eyewitness testimony” speaks volumes on the existence of Jesus.

False.
Firstly this is hearsay unless you can provide a list?

”My dad , who is a Manchester United supporter, says most people in his street are United supporters.”

Oh, well…. in that case it must be true, right?

And as you have only quoted one source – Craig, and not even backed this claim your credibility just went down the crapper – again

Arkenaten, I don’t want to insult you by assuming your comment is intended as serious. But for the sake of other readers who may not be familiar with William Lane Craig’s work or recognise an ad hominem attack…

Bishop is quoting Craig as an authority. Craig holds a Masters degree in Church History and did post-doctoral research in the historical argument for the resurrection of Christ. He holds positions at two universities. He knows what he’s talking about. His credentials and ongoing research make him a legitimate authority to quote in a post like this.

In any case, Bishop quotes scholars extensively throughout his post. Even if Craig was a nobody, Bishop’s credibility is quite safe.

I’m sure your dad is a fine man, but your analogy is false, your ad hominem attack against Bishop is disingenuous and your reasoning is faulty.

Not even sure what Arkenaten is really saying. When the name William Lane Craig is mentioned, atheists get all upset. There is nothing wrong with this post. In fact, it is fully supported by facts from history. One would have to refute the historical documents to refute much of this post. The atheists though do not have a criteria by which they can judge the historical proofs so they just whisk them away without a moments thought as if that is what make it false. And yes, Arkenaten’s analogy does not apply to this post. He also said; “And as you have only quoted one source…” I am not sure what post he read, but it is full of sources. The problem is, folks like Arkenaten do not read this resources that can be found on the net.

Could someone post the sources to these claims. It would really help out. Even if I had to buy full length books. At this point you are seriously just claiming things. (If they are already on here and I’m blind, I’m sorry would someone be willing to “point” them out for me?)

What’s worse is that these 41 points asserted by Bishop have little or no merit, as Richard Carrier pointed out in his assessment of Bishop’s list. The major problem is that all of the supposed extra-biblical sources that support historicity are either demonstrably Christian forgeries, interpolations, or can’t be shown to be independent of the Gospels (i.e. that they didn’t use the Gospels as direct or indirect sources for their claims). As for the supposed Biblical sources claimed to support historicity (i.e. the Gospels) they have all been shown to be hyperbolized redactions of (and thus not independent of) The Gospel According to Mark, which was itself a demonstrable work of allegorical myth and fiction. The irony is that Christians could still maintain a belief in the celestial Jesus (archangel) that was likely believed and mentioned by Paul in his epistles, but they’re hell bent on believing in a historical Jesus instead, despite the greater likelihood that the religion itself began with beliefs in a celestial (non-historical) Jesus. Christians would do far better if they just accepted the evidence that Jesus wasn’t likely historical and went back to the (likely) original Christian belief in the celestial Jesus. Unfortunately, because they’ve likely been tricked by the historical erasure of those original beliefs, they’re stuck trying to defend the position of those that likely erased said beliefs. Not only to defend the likely euhemerized myth (unbeknownst to them), but to also reject or deny the likely original belief. As a former Christian, I can’t help but marvel over the irony of what’s likely happened here over the last two thousand years, given the artificial selection of preserved texts by the Christian sect that won the battle over the others (including, likely the “original”/Pauline sect), and thus destroyed almost all the texts of the other sects. Had there been just a few more texts destroyed by those “proto-orthodox” Christians, the truth would have been entirely lost in the past. Based on what survived, it isn’t likely that Jesus existed historically, and I can only hope that more scholars begin to take this debate more seriously and actually address the evidence and arguments, rather than merely reassert the fallaciously-based consensus, etc. I know that many scholars and professors risk losing a lot of funding (or their careers), if it becomes widely accepted that Jesus’ historicity is unlikely, which is one reason why there is so much intellectual dishonesty within this debate (even by secular scholars that aren’t employing faith-based apologetic rationalizations).

The ridiculous thing is the double standard of a minority. People who don’t doubt about the existence of Alexander the Great (the first texts about him are 400 years after his death) and then deny the existence of Jesus (whose earliest traditions are about a decade after his death and the first texts about 20 years after his death).

If they applied their extreme skepticism to history, we would have to do away with most of ancient history. But it is selective skepticism, which shows an extreme bias and subjectivity. Their delusion is strong.

That’s why they are and they will remain a minority. Most atheist scholars, like most Christian scholars, accept the historical existence of Jesus, whatever their view about his divinity.

About Richard Carrier, I remember him making a fool of himself in a debate with William Lane Craig. As a Christian, I prefer Internet McAtheists to follow this clown with his pipe-dream theories instead of other atheists that are more sound and, hence, more difficult to fight.

The Jesus Story is actually an allegory for what would naturally be the oldest and most important story humans would notice and write down, that of the annual passage of the seasons of the year. The position of the Sun against the celestial sphere changes during the year.

Hey Boris, sounds a bit like a perfect explanation for the magical morphing theory known as evolution. Darwin’s story makes for some interesting cartoons. I was actually hoping to see Looney Tunes put out there version of Darwin’s theory but that wouldn’t be politically correct because the angry atheists would be offended by the truth. “The Jesus Story,” as one said, the delusion is great.

Why don’t you take that complaint to any Christian college or university of your choice. Then ask the people at the science department why they teach evolution and why they don’t teach Intelligent Design magic or Creation Magic. Evolutionary Theory is best established and longest standing scientific theory there is. Whining about is all you can do. Hilarious.

I predict I won’t see another word out of you Mr. Big Mouth. You have nothing to say and no way to respond because you know I’ll just bring the hammer down on you again. Chicken.. buk buk buk buk Hahahah

That’s ridiculous. Craig ignores the objections to his claims and then repeats them over and over and over and over again as if no objections had ever been raised. His bad debating ethics reflect on his personal ethics and morals. That is especially true when he tries to make excuses for the atrocities the Bible says his imaginary God committed. That is truly sickening to anyone who doesn;t get their morals from backward, superstitious, animal sacrificing primitives. Carrier just proved that Christians have no evidence that Jesus ever existed. Muhammad never existed either. Neither did Moses or Buddha. So don’t feel so bad. All religions are hoaxes with imaginary founders.

Attested to by who exactly? Don’t try to hurrumph your way out of this. GOTCHA. Tell me everything you can about Jesus and the disciples using only sources independent of the Bible and witten within one or two decades of his supposed death. Oh no such sources exist? That would be one GIGANTIC FAIL for you my friend. Why do you people even bother to say things we all know very well you cannot back up? Why? Is it really worth it to say things that are not true to protect your superstition? Just be honest admit you don’t have any evidence for any of the things OTHER PEOPLE frightened you into believing.

No. Actually it is the least attested to fact outside of church “history”. You will not find a single piece of evidence in any contemporary, historical sources outside of the religion. Zero. Christianity doesn’t appear on anyone’s radar until the 2nd century in any credible sources. And no, Josephus and Tacitus are not considered authentic sources.

The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun,
in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun,
and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.
-Thomas Paine

Also, Mara Serapion wrote in the seventh century…600 years after Christs death…So, its not exactly a witness, is he? I am so tired of being told that the reason that Jesus’ existence is a fact is because everyone says it is a fact…and three unreliable things written hundreds of years after Jesus’ death…oh, and the Gospels..which are also written after His death. Give me a break.

I thought this would be an interesting article , but I fell at the very 1st paragraph ” yet they affirmed Jesus’ existence by trying to accuse the disciples of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb (Matthew 28:13, ) ”

Matthew 28:13 is part of the Christian Gospels – it is what Christians say what the Jews said , not what the Jews actually Said 😦

When we look what the Jews say about Jesus all references come via Christianity – that is to say the Jews were told about Jesus from Christians. The Jews themselves appear to be unaware of the existence of Jesus. I can’t find any Jewish historian, scholar, Rabbi or High Priest mentioning Jesus until AFTER they were told about him from Christians.

// Cornelius Tacitus, writing in the early 2nd century, in his work Annals also refers to Jesus’ crucifixion. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now “firmly established” that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. //

Tacitus tells us that Christianity is ” a most mischievous superstition ” – Tacitus tells us that it is a myth , a bunch of lies .

How come this passage in Tactitus never showed up until the 15th Century and in the hands of the fabrication factory known as the Christian Church. The Church forged the entire New Testament and we’re supposed to believe they didn’t forge this in Tacitus as well. I should not have to point out that Crestus is a title many held but the name Jesus is never mentioned in the Tactus forgery. The desperation of your position is really obvious there liar.

Bingo. There is so much easily debunked nonsense in this blog post that it’s mind numbing. The rise of early Christianity? It was not even noticed until the very late 1st century. The gospels don’t show until the 2nd century in recognizable form.
Josephus? Lol. Another Christian forgery that was never mentioned until the 4th century.

In college I had a course called, “The Emergent Church in Antiquity.” The early Church fathers are literary inventions as are the apostles and Jesus. You have to remember that Christians were competing with other death cults for paying members and young boys to molest.

After reading the article and examining all the facts presented by the non-believers as well as believers. I have to say that I see a lot of duplicity coming from one group of individuals. For, Example This article is to support the fact that Jesus did exist and it does just that. However, after reading and studying” without bias” i find that the information that is given is correct. I notice that whenever there is some truth that supports Christianity “non-belivers “will quickly try to debunk the”truth” with old unreliable information that has been debunked. For instance,in the comment section some one stated that and I quote”

Comment: “There is absolutely no proof of Jesus’ existence, nor do all Biblical scholars think he was real, nor do many atheists.”
* Mister Bart Ehrman is the best textual critic and he is agnostic and he does not fight the historical Jesus battles because it is a lost cause and I would love to debate with you on that because the information is at an all time high. Also , the author of this article never said all scholars believe historical Jesus existed he said most of the knowledgeable, respectable expertise in the field do and that is a factual statement.

secondly,
Comment: Actually it is the least attested to fact outside of church “history”. You will not find a single piece of evidence in any contemporary, historical sources outside of the religion. Zero. Christianity doesn’t appear on anyone’s radar until the 2nd century in any credible sources. And no, Josephus and Tacitus are not considered authentic sources.
* however this article has given you pleny evidence and in that case the religion was started in the 1st century and even in in that century you had roman historians accounting for it.FACT!

I became a Christian because i realized that most people will deny the truth because the truth isn’t in them. Lets be honest, their is more evidence for a historical Jesus then there is for a historical Aristotle, Mohammed, and are even alexander the great.

That is just a lot of hot air. If there’s evidence that Jesus Christ or any of the apostles ever existed present it right here so we can debunk it and laugh at you. How come none of the apostles are mentioned by any historians either? Where’s evidence of Peter bringing new doctrine to Rome or Paul preaching from Mars Hill in the Athens Chronicles? The disciples were told to go and make themselves known to the world. If these people actually existed then that is the biggest fail in all of history. But alas they didn’t exist and so the biggest fail ion history is the attempt to cram your mythical Jesus into history. It hasn’t worked, it isn;t working and it’s NEVER going to work. You became a Christian because someone scared you into it with threats of eternal damnation. That is the ONLY reason anyone EVER becomes a Christian. You are no different.

Ask a conservative Christian apologist why we should believe that Jesus was a real historical figure and not the figment of someone’s imagination, a legend, and here is the likely response you will get: The majority of scholars (experts) believe that Jesus was a real historical person therefore everyone should accept the experts’ position.

However, ask the same conservative Christian apologist if he (or she) accepts the majority opinion of modern New Testament scholars—that neither eyewitnesses nor the associates of eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels*—and the likely response you will receive is this: The majority of New Testament scholars are biased.

Come on conservative Christians, let’s be consistent!

*Even very conservative, evangelical, New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham in his book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, admits that this is the current majority position among New Testament scholars.

James Bishop

James is from South Africa. He is a graduate in Creative Brand Communication and Marketing (CBC) & Theology (majoring in psychology). James obtained his BTh with cum laude, and is currently pursuing his postgraduate in Religious Studies.